From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-07-20T07:01:43+09:00
Subject: Re: RCR? Added syntax for chains that possibly return nil

On 7/19/07, Stefan Rusterholz <apeiros@gmx.net> wrote:
> Eugen Minciu wrote:
> > <hack>
> > class Object
> >   alias regular_method_missing method_missing
> >   def method_missing(meth)
> >     if meth.to_s[0]=='_'[0]
> >       return nil
> >     else
> >       regular_method_missing(meth)
> >     end
> >   end
> > end
>
> Reworked it a bit:
> class Object
>   alias method_missing_no_underscore method_missing
>   def method_missing(m,*a,&b)
>     m.to_s[0] == ?_ ? send(m.to_s[1..-1],*a,&b) :
> method_missing_no_underscore(m,*a,&b)
>   end
> end
>
> class NilClass
>   alias method_missing_no_underscore method_missing
>   def method_missing(m,*a,&b)
>     m.to_s[0] == ?_ ? nil : method_missing_no_underscore(m,*a,&b)
>   end
> end
>
> while line = gets._chomp
> ...
> end
>
> so ._ simulates -> with that hack. Thanks for the idea. Should check for
> m.to_s != "_", though, since that method is used e.g. with gettext.
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>

I hate it, this really should be syntax and furthermore it would make
code ugly ( I know beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder ;).
The original idea is quite good, why your shift?

This is a terrible name pollution amongst other bad things :(

Robert
>


-- 
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck